Grassley picking winners

[Zero]

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/56757296 ... e-tax-bill

SIEGEL: I want to ask you about estate taxes. The Tax Policy Center estimates that nationwide only about 80 family-owned small business and small farm estates will face any estate tax in 2017. Why is it so important to raise the ceiling on estate taxes when already a couple can pass on an estate of up to $11 million tax free?

GRASSLEY: I suppose to show appreciation for people that have lived frugally early in their life, delayed spending so they could save. It seems to me there ought to be some incentive and reward for those who work and save and invest in America as opposed to those who just live from day to day. You could take the same hundred-thousand-dollar income for two people - one of them, they spend it, have it all spent at the end of the year and the others have saved a fourth of it and invested and create jobs and leave something for the future. The first person leaves nothing for the future.

SIEGEL: But very, very few couples that make a combined income of $100,000 are going to have estates of $20 million that they pass on. I mean, that's a tiny fraction of people.

GRASSLEY: Listen, in no way is my statement meant to dispute the statistics you gave me. I'm giving you a philosophical reason for recognizing savings versus those who want to live high on the hog and not save anything or invest in the commodities.



Fuck off, Chuck.

[Montegriffo]

The first guy, who spends all his money, is providing jobs in the present. Sitting on your money helps no one but yourself.

[Okeefenokee]

Fiscal responsibility is selfish now.

Do the responsible thing and blow all your cash. It's what's best for everyone else. When you're destitute, just go on welfare.

[Fife]

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/56757296 ... e-tax-bill

SIEGEL: I want to ask you about estate taxes. The Tax Policy Center estimates that nationwide only about 80 family-owned small business and small farm estates will face any estate tax in 2017. Why is it so important to raise the ceiling on estate taxes when already a couple can pass on an estate of up to $11 million tax free?

GRASSLEY: I suppose to show appreciation for people that have lived frugally early in their life, delayed spending so they could save. It seems to me there ought to be some incentive and reward for those who work and save and invest in America as opposed to those who just live from day to day. You could take the same hundred-thousand-dollar income for two people - one of them, they spend it, have it all spent at the end of the year and the others have saved a fourth of it and invested and create jobs and leave something for the future. The first person leaves nothing for the future.

SIEGEL: But very, very few couples that make a combined income of $100,000 are going to have estates of $20 million that they pass on. I mean, that's a tiny fraction of people.

GRASSLEY: Listen, in no way is my statement meant to dispute the statistics you gave me. I'm giving you a philosophical reason for recognizing savings versus those who want to live high on the hog and not save anything or invest in the commodities.



Fuck off, Chuck.

At least we are finally understanding that all taxation is a matter of "picking winners." When a gang sets out to commit armed robbery, they are picking "losers," at a minimum, eh?

[Fife]

The first guy, who spends all his money, is providing jobs in the present. Sitting on your money helps no one but yourself.

"Spending" or "sitting," eh?

Time for some Econ 201. Enjoy, everyone.

http://tomwoods.com/ep-1045-the-key-ing ... they-dont/

[Fife]

Fiscal responsibility is selfish now.

Do the responsible thing and blow all your cash. It's what's best for everyone else. When you're destitute, just go on welfare.

Dem boys are brilliant, aren't they?

[kybkh]

The first guy, who spends all his money, is providing jobs in the present. Sitting on your money helps no one but yourself.

Maybe if everyone helped themselves they would not need SSI and Medicare...

Or we can continue down the path of living on low interest credit cards.

Besides, all this deficit spending talk is bullshit. We are sitting on a couple of trillion in bad debt already and you got some TN senator talking about 1 trillion over a decade being a back breaker?

WTF Fife, you guys had one job!! No wonder you keep hiring lame coaches.

[Zero]

I can see that, especially if framed through who puts the most money in the pot, but I don’t think I agree.

Taxations premise to me has always been about allocating resources based on the needs of society with a goal for overall stability. Individuals can prosper, and chip in proportionally. It’s not losing when I’m promoting stability overall.

Personally, that works for me, provided the money is being spent in a thrifty, responsible way - but that’s where the subjectivity always comes in.

[Zero]

The first guy, who spends all his money, is providing jobs in the present. Sitting on your money helps no one but yourself.

"Spending" or "sitting," eh?

Time for some Econ 201. Enjoy, everyone.

http://tomwoods.com/ep-1045-the-key-ing ... they-dont/

I’ll check this out this weekend. I’ve been hankering to revisit what I’m assuming is some Mises and Hayek.

[Zero]

The first guy, who spends all his money, is providing jobs in the present. Sitting on your money helps no one but yourself.

Maybe if everyone helped themselves they would not need SSI and Medicare...

Or we can continue down the path of living on low interest credit cards.

Totally agree. Part of the balance has to come from people making smart financial decisions, but for Grassley to assume that the reason so many Americans aren’t saving enough is due to them living high on the hog and then rewarding those that are going to already be starting ahead is what make him such a douche.